Brodsky: Let's plan now for the next superstorm

RICHARD BRODSKY

Updated 10:06 pm, Monday, December 17, 2012

It's time to ask the tough questions about Superstorm Sandy.

Were we prepared? How did we respond? What's the recovery plan?

The focus so far has been on our immediate response, and things went reasonably well. The images of brave first responders and the heroism of ordinary people are indelible. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Michael Bloomberg were visible doing their best in an unfolding disaster.

But now we need to know if we were prepared for Sandy, if we could have lessened the damage, and how we're going to manage the recovery.

These are more than just sensible questions. There is, it turns out, a law requiring New York state and New York City to have public plans, which include "appropriate measures to prevent" "flood," "high water" and "wave action." The same law, enacted in 1978, requires state and city plans to describe how they will manage "recovery and redevelopment" after a storm surge hits.

They don't. The state and city failed to meet the law's requirement that it plan for a storm surge. And they failed to develop a plan for how we're going to manage the difficult recovery, and who will get the federal money we're now seeking. This isn't a minor oversight we can shrug off. The practical consequences are enormous. We all saw the images of water pouring into the Brooklyn Battery and PATH and MTA tunnels and the weeks of subway service loss that ensued.

Why weren't the tunnel entrances sandbagged? Who decided not to?

Why? What does the plan say?

And lest you think this is farfetched, about a block from the Battery Tunnel sits the huge Goldman Sachs building, right on the Hudson River. What did Goldman do? According to Bloomberg News, "Predictions of an 11-foot storm surge prompted Goldman Sachs to stack sandbags around its West Street office in Lower Manhattan." Ugh.

The same lack of prevention affected hospitals, office buildings, telephone service, small businesses and others. Con Ed and LIPA have taken the loudest criticism, but the failure of state and city plans is at least as bad.

Both Cuomo and Bloomberg are smart and tough. They performed well in the Sandy response phase, issuing warnings and making decisions, which lessened the human and economic suffering. But both talked like Sandy and storm surges were something surprising.

Of protections in Lower Manhattan, Cuomo said, "It is something we're going to have to start thinking about."

Bloomberg: "We need to make sure that we (can) deal with whatever nature throws at us, even if we hadn't predicted it."

Let's be clear. Existing law requires the governor and mayor to inquire into and plan for a storm surge. It didn't happen, and billions in damage resulted.

But that's looking backward. Let's look forward. What's the recovery plan? Should we invest in a "smart grid" to reduce damage to our electric system? Should we rebuild homes and offices in surge-prone areas? Who controls the money and the decisions?

Sandy recovery will be hurt by another struggle for power between a governor and a mayor. It will be hurt by excluding business and labor and civic and environmental organizations from decisions. It will be hurt if we adopt the models that failed at the World Trade Center.

Here's a plan: Let's admit that we didn't do what we could to prevent damage, and fix the plans.

Let's engage a broad range of folks in a public examination of how the recovery process will unfold and who will govern it. Let's begin the complicated process of setting priorities for use of federal money.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Rixhard Brodsky is a former state assemblyman from Westchester County. He is a fellow at the Demos think tank in New York City and at the Wagner School at NYU.